MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544536892 · doi:10.5038/1911-9933.10.2.1404

Forgotten and Concealed: The Emblematic Cases of the Assyrian and Romani Genocides

2016· article· en· W2544536892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Riccardo Armillei, Nikki Marczak, Panayiotis Diamadis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPost-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsRedressNeglectGenocideForgettingPersecutionGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceLawSociologyPsychologyPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By exploring how the Assyrian and Romani genocides came to be forgotten in official history and collective memory, this paper takes a step towards redress for years of inadvertent neglect and deliberate concealment. In addressing the roles played by scholars and nations, and the effect of international law and government policy, it notes the inaccessibility of evidence, combined with a narrow application of definitions of victim groups, and a focus on written proof of perpetrator intent. Continuing persecution of survivors in the aftermath of the genocides, and government actions to erase the genocides from history, are common to both cases. The dimension of a comparative analysis between two emblematic “hidden” genocides shows that there are many similarities in the process of forgetting that occurred in their respective aftermaths. Developing an understanding of how these genocides came to be ignored and forgotten may provide a foundation for genuine acknowledgment and redress.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.039
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicPost-Soviet Geopolitical DynamicsFrench-language works237,207